The order of words. If it was ich bin you wouldn't say am i would you? Same with this translation.
There is a subtle difference between hearing and seeing nothing and not hearing and seeing anything which is important in getting 100% meaning through
Because that would have been "ich sehe -oder- höre nicht" instead of "und," since "or" is translated as "oder" and "und" as "and." But i agree your version sounds more natural, but as a translation its incorrect
In English, as far as I know, there's no difference (or there is not any difference, which is the same) between "nothing" and "not anything". In German there is just one expression that cover for both. The answer "I do not hear or see anything " is the same as "I see and hear nothing" (given that the negation of (A AND B) is: NOT (A OR B)). The fact that in English there are two valid expressions where in German there is just one expression to negate the object, doesn't mean that only one is correct just because in the form is more similar. P.S.: The translation of "Ich sehe oder höre nicht." is "I don't see or hear.
I agree but as translation is incorrect??? You dont know what you are talking about!
People aren't here to learn direct translations. If "I hear and see nothing" is correct, then "I don't hear or see anything" is also correct. They have exactly the same semantic meaning.
I can hear Sargent Schultz saying it now. "Ich höre nichts! Ich sehe nichts! Ich verstehe NIIIIICHTS!"
Ja! 'Hogan's Heros' Schultz pflegte zu sagen: "Ich höre nichts, ich sehe nichts, ich weiß nichts!" :)
Does he say that whole thing? I just remember him saying I know nothing. Nothing!
I've got the entire series of Hogan's Heroes (1965-71) on DVD, and I've never heard Schultz say all three things (hear, see, know nothing) at the same time, although there might be an episode or two when he does. There are about 5 DVDs per season, and so far I've only made it through the 1966-67 season :)
Occasionally he will say the whole spiel, but it's usually I know nothing.... NOTH-ING!
If I remember correctly, there was a time when he said "I see nothing, I hear nothing, I didn't even get up this morning!"
because you are using 'or' instead of 'and' because if it was I don't hear or see anything then it would say Ich hore ODER sehe nichts.
This is a trivial objection. In English "or" can be either exclusive "one of either X or Y" [She will dance OR she will play the violin.] or it can be inclusive "neither/both of X or Y" [She cannot sing OR dance.]. Sometimes it depends on context, sometimes it's a set phrase. Native speakers have no trouble differentiating.
This is more more clear in, say, Latin ("aut" versus "vel").
Upon first reading of your post, I was almost ready to downvote it. But actually, you bring up a very interesting point. My initial reaction was that German is very picky about this. But, after thinking about it a moment, I realized that this really IS a major flaw of English (and maybe German, idk).
Latin is said to be a challenging language, but it sounds like it is extremely precise. I think it would be interesting to study some day.
I disagree that in English there is any cognitive different meaning between "nothing" and "not anything."
What do you see? Nothing. What do you see? I said, not anything.
However, if it's a stock phrase, like the one the fictitious Sergeant Schultz of Hogan's Heroes was famous for, then it loses something if it's not the original. Schultz's stock expression was "I see/hear/know nothing, nothing!" By the same token, the American animated cartoon series The Simpsons had a gag about something similar in one episode that featured "Radioactive Man", an Arnold Schwarzenneggar-like superhero. Radioactive Man's stock phrase was supposed to be "Up and at 'em!", with the "at 'em" bit being a pun on "atom". But Radioactive Man always insisted on saying it in textbook English, "Up and at them!", which drove the director nuts.
I had the same situation today, I used "I don´t hear or see anything", not sure what´s wrong with this translation.
(A ∧ B) ⇔ ¬(A ∨ B) Turns out that "and" and "not or" are precisely the same thing.
You are right in "logik" but Duo does not acept this. (I tryed). I think Duo translate: and -- und , and: or -- oder. And does not allow the changing "not and" -- "or". Maybe it is why "something" translate to "etwas" and " anything" translate too to the same "etwas". Here is a logical Error in the translation.
Direct quote from "Hogans Heroes" Sgt. Schultz....made me laugh. Which was really nice since Duolingo stole my 552 day streak yesterday so I needed a laugh.
Klein means small, but keine means "not a" or "not any". Think of it as k-ein, k-eine, k-einen and it should make more sense when to use it.
that was my mistake thank but still i dont know when i can use nicht or kein
Nichts means "nothing", so that one should be easy to place, nicht negates an action while kein negates a noun. So if this was "ich höre und sehe keine Kühe" we would use keine saying you can't hear or see any cows, and if it was "ich höre und sehe nicht" you would be saying you're blind and deaf, while "ich höre und sehe nichts" means you can't hear or see anything.
Keine is used when you can use eine. If you take out the nicht/keine and replace it with eine, does it still make sense? If yes, Then keine is used. If not, it should be nicht. And if you specifically mean "nothing" use nichts.
I had to look through many different sets of comments to finally find a comment about kein/keine/nicht/nichts and being actually deaf and blind. Thank you for the explanation. It was especially helpful.
Also, I knew there a 'test' to figure out when kein/keine was appropriate verses nicht. Thank you for the clarification. I needed that reminder!
Have a great day.
It's interesting how 'I dont hear or see anything can't be a reasonable translation.' I like how specific Duolingo translations are. Being a bilingual speaker, I can see how the word order in one translation maybe different from another.
So can the person hear, but not have the ability to see, or do they both hear and see nothing?
If you wanted to say that you see, but do not hear, you'd use:
Ich höre, aber ich sehe nichts.
The sentence translate to I hear and see nothing. This means the subject Ich/I höre/hears nothing/nichts and she/sees nothing/nichts. The reason nichts is used once at the end of the sentence is because und/and is a conjunction that combines höre/hears and see/sees. Therefore, whatever happens to one happens to the other. "Ich höre und sehe nichts" means "I hear nothing AND I see nothing" which is simplified to "I hear and see nothing." I hope this helped.
What is the meaning of this sentence in German?
Is the subject:
a) Actively seeing and hearing nothing, but in a figurative sense, i.e. they cannot see or hear anything of importance, meaning they can actually see and hear in a physical sense (there eyes and ears work) but cannot not see or hear the object of reference.
e.g. Can you see the sniper? I can see nothing from my position!
b) Actively seeing nothing in a literal sense, e.g. I see the nothing/nothingness of the void of space.
c) To be surrounded by nothingness and/or be deafened or blinded. e.g. It is pitch black outside and extremely quiet. So you are unable to see or hear. Or An explosion has blinded and deafened you. So you are unable to see or hear.
If the meaning is a) then I think the Duolingo translation is ok. b) is a special case where I think both the German and the English would be different. If the meaning is c) then the translation Duolingo is giving is wrong. It should be: “I cannot hear or see anything”
This is a really strange prescribed translation. We don't generally say it this way.
I think Duolingo wants a literal translation here, but for many other translations, some are far fetched. I do agree with you, that was my answer as well.
"I don't hear or see anything" is also correct. "I hear and see nothing" is a bit stilted. In conversation, I am not seeing or hearing anything.
nichts just means nothing. but you translate it to ''do not'' and '' nothing '' its not correct
I put "I hear and see nothing ever" DUO said it was wrong despite earlier stating that when NICHTS Is used then nothing EVER was correct DUO lacks consistency in my view.
I wrote: “I neither hear nor see anything.” and it was incorrect. My common sence told me a complex sentence≠a simple sentence. It turned out to be correct. Oh Almighty! What has this language done to my innocent brain!
i answered this question RIGHT for dozens of time and yet Duo keeps repeating it again and agin. why?
I have the same problem with the Norwegian module. I don't know if it's cookies, software, or the website.
That uses the model verb "can". So what you wrote would be "Ich kann sehen oder hören nichts".
I find it interesting and somewhat puzzling that his phrase keeps coming up over and over as I'm about halfway through the lessons on Negatives. I guess Duo wants me to sound like Sergeant Schultz in the old Hogan's Hero show, "I know nothing, NOTHING!"
In the lesson on negatives, I have see this sentence perhaps 30 times - perhaps more. There is a problem with the algorithms.
I just want to say that the last two words she says sound nothing like what it's supposed to be. However, the man does a much better job.
Why on earth is "I am seeing" not accepted when "I am Swimming" is accepted as "I swim" elsewhere in this programme as "I swim" as present tense.
does this mean- "I hear something, and see nothing."
or "I hear nothing, and see nothing?"
Since Duo does not teach us punctuation, an explanation is necessary here: "Without comma before and - so " Ich sehe und höre nichts " means you neither hear anything nor see anything - with a comma in front of and - so:" Ich höre, und sehe nichts " means: I hear something, but do not see anything. But in spoken German on says in this case for a better understanding:" Ich höre etwas, sehe aber nichts"
As with other verbs "I am hearing and seeing nothing" is also present tense, so why is this not accepted? I refuse to go further until I have a clear explanation. Has anyone had this same problem?
My translation- "I am hearing and seeing nothing." If "Ich schwimme" means "I am swimming" why does "Ich sehe" not mean "I am seeing" ?? Please explain.
If "Ich gehe" can be translated as "I am going" Why is it unacceptable to translate "Ich sehe nichts" as "I am seeing nothing" ? Is there something here I'm missing ?
"I don't hear or see anything" is not the same as "I hear and see nothing". Ich höre und sehe nichts means that you don't hear anything and you don't see anything.
"I don't hear or see anything" could mean that you hear something but don't see it, you see something but don't hear it, or you don't hear it or see it.
If this is still not clear, let's look at it mathematically.
Scenario 1. If x = 5 and y = 7, enter "Passes" otherwise enter "Fails". Scenario 2. If x = 5 or y = 7, enter "Passes" otherwise enter "Fails'.
Let x = 1 and y = 7.
For Scenario 1. the result is "Fails" because x has to equal 5 and y has to equal 7.
For Scenario 2. the result is "Passes" because either x has to equal 5 or y has to equal 7 to satisfy the scenario.
"I see and hear nothing" what's wrong? I'm sure 'and' terms is interchangeable
That has two negatives in it, which would have the same meaning as "I am hearing and seeing something"
I thought the negation came after the verb. If there is more than one verb, such as here, does the negation always come after the final verb?
Ich höre nichts = I hear nothing
Ich höre nicht = I do not hear
The latter can be expanded with further details e.g.
Ich höre dich nicht. = I do not hear you.
Ich höre nicht, was er sagt. = I do not hear what he says.
the' I' is implied with the' see', otherwise you would not have conjugated it. Why is it regarded as wrong?
I don't think you would ever say 'I don't hear anything' the correct version of this is 'I can't hear anything' and THAT is the equivalent of 'I hear nothing'. 'I don't hear anything' does not sound natural and is definitely not grammatical.